Affirmative Action Banned in Michigan

Applying to College
1

<p>I see that the state of Michigan has passed Proposal 2, which outlaws affirmative action for college admissions at the public universities in the state (which includes the University of Michigan, Michigan State, and Wayne State--all of which are specifically mentioned in the initiative).</p>

<p>My questions are:</p>

<p>Now that Michigan (2006) and California (2002) have passed these (similar) measures, are other states likely to follow their lead? And which program is this likely to affect the most (law, medical, MBA programs)?</p>

<p>Is a school like Michigan likely to get more or fewer applications as a result of this change? </p>

<p>Just wondering.</p>

2

<p>Damn you I wanted to be the first to start this thread. ah wtvr. No I don't think applicants will be discouraged from applying but this could definitely start a trend at least among state universities (anyone remember what happened when harvard stopped scea? ;)) i believe that stopping affirmative action will allow everyone to come before the law as equals. affirmative action made it seem like blacks, women, and hispanics are incapable of acheiving what white males can acheive, so they need a little boost. i think that' more racist than banning affirmative action, after all, we're all just humans and blacks are just as capable as whites, women as capable as men. so why enact something that makes people believe they aren't?</p>

3

<p>"The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative would make it unlawful for all public employers and public contractors, as well as public schools, to discriminate or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, skin color, gender or national origin" as stated</p>

<p>One has to to understand what "affirmative action" originally meant when it was first conceived in the 1960's - which was to seek out or reach out into the various communities to find additional APPLICANTS from underrepresented groups. The idea was that larger numbers of applicants would eventually YIELD more successful applicants -who either enter the school, obtain the government contract, or receive the job The intent was not to lower the standards</p>

<p>However "affirmative action" over the years morphed into a color coding racial quota system - disguised by other labels to the extent possible, but in the end acted to discriminate against the various non-minority groups</p>

<p>Prop 2 while it's listed as making unlawful race and gender and other types of discrimination - it's well known it's been race where the largest abuses have occurred</p>

<p>Since the Sup Court has ruled, its hard to tell exactly what will happen, a factor absense in the California iniative a decade back. Generally a window will open up for on-the-merits applicants of all colors -to have a chance to enter the state universities without facing a huge handicap vs the URM categories. That would mean more non-URM applicants, who would (correctly) realize the window is probably only temporary for a few years as the usual work-arounds (e.g dropping the SATs) are attempted - as California has tried -or the Texas approach where they let the top 10% in to Univ of Texas, when everyone knows "top 10" status in some schools could be way below U Texas standards</p>

<p>No doubt a significant larger numbers of URMs will rejected be at Univ of Michigan (as happened in CA) and this fact (down the road) will be paraded by the pro-racial quota crowd of proof of the unfairness of it all. Generally URM applicants do drop off quite rapidly -as they realize they have little chance when competing (primarily) on the merits</p>

<p>Note that this is about PUBLIC universities only, at least at this point, and Michigan happens to have a top undergrad and a top law school - not that common - so other states are hard to call</p>

<p>Another work-around for medical schools it is to accept URMs directly into combination undergrad/med school 8 year programs -thus bypassing the need to take the MCATs</p>

4

<p>Several decades back in California as it concerns the bar exam to try to offset the very low passage rate by minority applicants (I believe it was in the 20 to 30% range) - there were proposals to add extra points to minority exams (I believe they were called "hardship points") - meaning in essence there would be 2 bar exams - basically one for whites and asians - and one for blacks and those of latino origin</p>

<p>If I recall this right, it was white liberal college professors (among others) pushing hardest for this - and they viewed it as an effort to make up for slavery and various oppressions and discrimination etc - the usual list</p>

<p>Ironically, in part what shut the idea down was that certain BLACK ATTY organizations - which basically understood that they were being made into second class citizens because it would now be presumed (incorrectly of course) that they only had been admitted via a special exam, and they didn't want to be stigmatized with this racial pandering</p>

<p>As one example, consider the (possible) multi-tiered levels of affirmative action in the profession of law that can currently exist</p>

<ol>
<li>undergrad admission via affirmative action</li>
<li>law school admission via affirmative action</li>
<li>making law review via affirmative action (see: <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=513672&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li>
<li>law firm hiring via affirmative action</li>
<li>law firm promotion via affirmative action</li>
<li>attainment of partnerhip via affirmative action</li>
</ol>

<p>Now of course some "minorities" can and do achieve w/o help of such affirmative action programs - however such multi-tiered affirmative action schemes are now being used for many - not just in law - but with many other professions</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Generally a window will open up for on-the-merits applicants of all colors -to have a chance to enter the state universities without facing a huge handicap vs the URM categories.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not correct. There was no huge handicap. Whose math/figures are you using?</p>

<p>I also object to your use of "quotas." This is no true at Michigan. If you don't believe me, again, I urge you to look at numbers. Enrolled minorities at U-M have risen and fallen in a regular pattern along with applications. We wouldn't see that in a quota system.</p>

6

<p>I was referring to what occured in California </p>

<p>Disguised quota systems are just that: disguised and can be adjusted as events dictate</p>

7

<p>That's great--I'm not familiar with California's figures on the handicap and would like to see them. Can you share, or refer them?</p>

8

<p>Hm, intriguingly enough, I got my acceptance to Michigan (I was part of the first batch of decisions) ON election day. <em>eye roll</em></p>

9

<p>Eye roll? What's that about? Did you think they were trying to influence your vote somehow? ;)</p>

10

<p>No, they're splitting their applicant pool into two seperate batches, one with extreme affirmative action and the other without ...I mean, I don't know this for a fact, but they've definitely inferred it.</p>

11

<p>I don't know what you mean by "extreme" affirmative action. ??</p>

<p>Michigan is smart (in my opinion) to process as many apps as it can before the ban takes effect. This is because it has to make some pretty big changes. It's not just that they have to stop considering race. They can't risk being noncompliant, so they will have to figure out how to hide gender and race from application readers. They still have to collect that information (it's required for federal reporting, for one thing) but now they have to devise a system that will obscure it. Slapping on thousands of little Post-its isn't going to cut it; they image all applications.</p>

<p>It may slow application processing and halt decisions while they figure it out. Thus, it's in their best interest (and that of waiting candidates) to chug out decisions while they can still use their current process. I don't know when they'll have to have the new one in place, but with 25,000+ apps to deal with, better that they deal with the ones they already have ASAP. Again, just my opinion. Yes, this allows U-M to admit some minorities using AA, but for the most part it is non-minorities who are being admitted now.</p>

12

<p>They also cannot use gender, which will hurt men, but they can still use legacy status, etc...funny how that works. So the affluent still can claim to be unbiased because they are using stats, instead of a more holistic approach to college admissions...Interesting.</p>

<p>Grab power and hold on to it...no to people of 'color', but yes to wealth (i.e. prep courses, private college counselors, private schools, more opportunities). Wow, couple that to merit aid and you got yourself a ball game, if you're upper-middle class. Nice.</p>

13

<p>A</a> very interesting report was published about the effects of this legislation earlier this year (it was updated in September). If the report (23 pages) is too long for you, the group that published it (The</a> Center for the Education of Women at Michigan) also published a</a> good summary.</p>

<p>In addition to affecting the admission process, this affects all sorts of educational efforts. Programs cut when California passed their legislation:</p>

<p>-The CA Summer Science & Technology Academy, aimed at girls and students of color (though not exclusive to them).
-Scholarships that took race, gender or family heritage into consideration.
-Funding for teachers working predominantly with students of color to get extra training.
-Outreach programs aimed to prepare low-income students and students of color for college.</p>

14

<p>"Grab power and hold on to it...no to people of 'color', but yes to wealth (i.e. prep courses, private college counselors, private schools, more opportunities)."</p>

<p>Actually, the ending of affirmative action will have very little effect on the admissions of white males. As studies have shown time and again, Asian students are the ones who are most impacted by affirmative action.</p>

<p>Since proposition 209 in California, the number of white students at the University of California has stayed relatively stable while the number of Asian students has gone up. So maybe Asian skin is too pale for you to consider them people of 'color'?</p>

15

<p>"-The CA Summer Science & Technology Academy, aimed at girls and students of color (though not exclusive to them).
-Scholarships that took race, gender or family heritage into consideration.
-Funding for teachers working predominantly with students of color to get extra training.
-Outreach programs aimed to prepare low-income students and students of color for college."</p>

<p>Are you also excluding Asians when you say "students of color"?</p>

16

<p>GreenFish, by some demographic measures, Asians had not be classified as Under Represented Minorities. That fact began to change (partly) with the arrival in the U.S. of perceived disadvantaged groups such as the vietnamese and Hmong tribesmen.</p>

<p>And by the way, more than a few ethnic groups from Asia are by no means "pale" in complexion.</p>

17

<p>
[QUOTE]
Are you also excluding Asians when you say "students of color"?

[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I see the relevance of your question. That list demonstrated that affirmative action touches many educational programs and not just admission policy.</p>

<p>Click the link and read the report. It's an easy, interesting read.</p>

18

<p>"but they can still use legacy status, etc.."</p>

<p>This has to do with the entire framework and history and case law associated with 14th amendment equal protection issues and the fact that legacy vs non-legacy categories are not constitutionally protected per se - whereas race has always been considered absolutely unconstitutional to be used to deny someone admission to a college or university, whether public or private, except under the Sup Ct Grutter case etc where Justice O'Connor appeared to implicitly enshrine into law discrimination AGAINST whites and Asians in certain situations, for example in law school admission</p>

<p>Note public universities can also lawfully discriminate via admission against non-athletes in favor of athletes, same with musicians and artists and other categories - these simply do not trigger constitutional issues</p>

19

<p>"Actually, the ending of affirmative action will have very little effect on the admissions of white males. As studies have shown time and again, Asian students are the ones who are most impacted by affirmative action."</p>

<p>As a general statement that is true because Asians tend to have the best hard numbers in terms of admission, however I would say whites can still be significantly impacted as one moves away from California. Since California is the primary case most people look at: the numbers are skewed a bit - as that state of course has a very unusual amount of highly qualified Asian college applicants, particularly into the U CAL system</p>

20

<p>Citation, true...</p>

<p>But, this issue is not completely case law....you'd have to wait to see if there are challenges, and if the Supreme Court will become involved, as it contradicts the UMichigan findings.</p>

<p>The two sides on the issue look at different things when trying to balance case law needs and social needs, as there are Constitutionalists, and those that advocate for a more activist court.</p>

<p>As for Asians...most schools make a distinction between Southeast Asians and East Asians--the latter group generally having more opportunities, higher scores, etc--which I applaud, since if there was no distinction those affluent Japanese, Chinese, and South Korean ('Asian') would be making gains while the generally less affluent Southeast Asian would lose. </p>

<p>Many people talk about California and Asian performance, but have you looked at Hawaii, where the majority are Asian...and have you seen the scores? The relationship between Asians being inherently smarter as evidenced by test scores does not hold. A whole state of Asians that do not fit the anti-AA paradigm, and is usually ignored because it weakens the position of those who want to keep power via non-constitutional issues like legacies, etc....</p>

<p>I forget who was on here a while back but his position was much like mine. I think he was from Hawaii too. The point is that the stats case is itself discriminatory, and that it has true life ramifications, not only for minorities, but also women--as Dean L and others have pointed out.</p>

<p>AA should just be a stop-gap measure until society and government can find a more effective way to deal with disparity in society, in college admissions, and in the primary and secondary school systems.</p>